Public Accounts Committee on April 16th, 2007

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How did they bring that to your attention?

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

They came to me and spoke to me personally.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But you don't know who it was.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

No, I don't remember who it was, but I remember what I did as a result of that discussion. I called for the commanding officer of A Division. She was not there. I spoke to Chief Superintendent Watson, who was the criminal operations officer responsible for criminal operations in the national capital region.

I said it was my understanding that Staff Sergeant Lewis went to A Division and was asking for a criminal investigation. I told him that I had already dealt with Mr. Lewis's complaints and that, based on my decision and my evaluation of the facts, the organization would do an audit. That was my responsibility as the senior manager in the force, and I told him they would not proceed, because they hadn't even started.

That was not the proper way. That was a decision that I was to make as the commissioner, in terms of what was the proper way to proceed. Subsequent acts confirmed that it was the proper way to proceed.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Zaccardelli.

Mr. Lewis, what's your version?

[Ron Lewis]

It's interesting. Mr. Zaccardelli must have been working on the weekend, because my recollection is that on May 28 we had a meeting. That has been recorded and is not in dispute. He's saying now that two days later he called Chief Superintendent Watson. I never put the complaint in until June 5, from Niagara Falls. I never talked to Watson until a week later, after I got back from Niagara Falls. So now he's saying that two days later he called Watson. I never even got the complaint in until the June 5, and I never talked to Watson until at least a week after that.

In a document that I've already tabled, it says that the criminal investigation started on June 23 and ended on June 25. That's incredible.

This is the problem I've had for six years with this man. I keep telling him things, he keeps twisting, and he keeps telling lies. I'm sick of it. And he's doing it here under oath.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I know where you're coming from, Mr. Williams, and I'm going to address it.

Please, in your testimony, Mr. Lewis, I'd ask you to refrain from making personal insinuations like you just did. We don't allow that in Parliament, and we're not allowed to do it in this committee. We're here to give every witness a chance to explain their involvement in this very difficult situation in which they've found themselves involved. We're not going to tolerate any more statements like that against any person, either in this room or outside this room.

Mr. Williams, did I address your concerns? I think I did.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

That's correct, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Rodriguez, for five minutes.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say it is really astonishing to hear so many contradictory versions about such important aspects based on such categorical statements.

Mr. Zaccardelli, given the impact this could have, for example, on the career of Mr. Macaulay, in your own mind why do these people make such serious allegations?

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I can't speak for them, but I'm assuming they came forward because they genuinely believe in what they're alleging and what they're proposing, and they have every right to do so. But I believe they have a duty to corroborate these unsubstantiated and baseless facts.

You keep referring to Mr. Macaulay. I explained how I dealt with Mr. Macaulay. Mr. Macaulay was given a secondment, and then he came back into a very good job that I actually.... If I were punishing Mr. Macaulay, I certainly would have taken action to prevent his going to a very good job. I actually had no say in where he was going. He was requested by Assistant Commissioner Darrell LaFosse, who wanted him, and he went there. I had absolutely no say in that whatsoever.

I can't explain why people are coming forward and making these statements. I can only tell you what I knew and how I acted based on that information. Some people may disagree with the actions I took, but as I said in my opening statement, it is a quantum leap to disagree with someone's managerial decision and to take that disagreement to mean that there's a cover-up or that somebody's been involved in a criminal matter. That is what I'm stating here today.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

My question is directed to Mr. Macaulay and is on the same subject. At our last meeting, you stated, and I quote:

My punitive assignment was a two-year secondment to the Department of National Defence. Let me add that this in no way reflects upon the Department of National Defence, but for me, being removed from my position was a punishment and a clear message to others.

You said and you maintain that it was a punishment in your opinion.

But Mr. Zaccardelli said that he did it for your own good. He adds that he gave you a promotion upon your return. Do you agree?

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

No. First, I didn't get a promotion since I returned. I was a chief superintendent when I left in 2003 and I'm a chief superintendent today. So I've never had a promotion.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I meant that he gave you a good job, that you got exactly what you wanted.

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

No. I was in human resources before I left. I came back under Assistant Commissioner Darrell LaFosse, who was looking for someone to come back.

But just on that point, I have to make it very clear that he was ready to take me before I ever left, and he was told, no, you can't have him, and I was sent to DND. On two further occasions, he kept trying to get me to come back; we had discussions about my coming back.

But what's really important for this, just to put clarity around some of the issues, is that in my discussion with Barb George when I was coming back, she actually said to me that I had to demonstrate to her why I deserved to come back. I'll find the exact quote in here. This has nothing to do with, as Mr. Zaccardelli says, my knowing for a year. It might be in his mind that I knew for a year from somewhere. I don't know where that opinion got formulated. May 28 is the day we found out.

In regard to all the audits, on June 17 when I went into Mr. Zaccardelli's office, at the request of Barb George, who was the only person, I believe, at that time who really knew exactly what was going on in the organization.... She was aware of Ron Lewis's complaint; I wasn't. On June 17, we left them paper. That created the audit, not May 28.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Lewis, at the same meeting, referring to certain managers surrounding Mr. Zaccardelli, you said, and I quote:

Some of these key individuals demonstrated substandard values and lacked the integrity expected of members of the RCMP. When these executives were found committing wrongdoings, they were protected by commissioner Zaccardelli rather than punished.

Considering what Mr. Zaccardelli said today, did you change your opinion?

[Ron Lewis]

No, I haven't.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

With reference to Mr. Crupi's file earlier on, you showed us a document. Could you tell me what it is about?

[Ron Lewis]

This document was presented to me—I'll give you the exact time and date—by Chief Superintendent Macaulay in Greely, Ontario, at 10.30 a.m. on April 14, 2007, which was Saturday, I believe. It was passed on to him from the RCMP to give to me to come here today. These were the documents that I requested.

And this is a document I referred to earlier—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Are you going to table these documents?

[Ron Lewis]

I'm going to table it, yes.

It covers other issues as well, but it says here: “November 23, 2003, Dominic Crupi, former Director of National Compensation Policy Centre, was sent home on management leave.” Now, there's no such thing in the public service. He was home for 16 months.

Then, it said, on March 22, 2005—that's, I believe, 16 months later—“Dominic Crupi, former officer in charge of the National Compensation Policy Centre, was suspended without pay.” Now, that is my understanding of how the public service works. You'll have to verify that.

“On June 17, 2005, he resigned from the public service.” My understanding is that he reached the age of pension at that time. You'll have to verify that as well.

That's the official document from the RCMP. That's quite a difference from firing him, he's going home. That's the document from the RCMP.

I'll table this with you as well. You'll have to verify it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Sweet is next, for five minutes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Crupi, we've got evidence all over the place--your testimony all over the place. When did your administrative leave end?

[Dominic Crupi]

My administrative leave ended probably in November 2004--November or December--when I went on sick leave.